the 50L is CRAP.. .. the 85L is the only sub 100mm L that kicks some serious ass..

Interesting. So, you owned the 50L and, what...chucked it in the bin? Better bokeh than any Sigma lens and most Canon lenses, but sure...crap. Maybe intended use, portraits, for example, should be considered? Naah, you're right it's crap.

You're right about no other sub-100mm L lenses except the 85L being any good, either. My TS-E 24L II must be crap, too.

+1. 50L is a great tool for an artist, not the best one for making test chart shots. It's all about who you want to be

This is actually a great statement and very useful for people looking for the more expensive lenses the first time.There are always a lot of conflicting statements about every lens (every tool for that matter) on the Internet. For most good lenses, the negative comments come from people who never used it or shot charts.I read so much bullshit about the 17-55's dust issue before just renting it, loving it and buying it.Same with the 70-200 IS mark I. People keep talking about back-focusing issues on the 50 1.2 and lack of sharpness on the 35 1.4 yet so many people are using them everyday with great results- that itself should be the hint.

Back to topic: anyone thinks this might be a 1.2? Although Canon can definitely just make ample optic and build improvements to justify a mark II, a 35 1.2 would be nice Especially since I am still on crop for at least a while...

Back to topic: anyone thinks this might be a 1.2? Although Canon can definitely just make ample optic and build improvements to justify a mark II, a 35 1.2 would be nice Especially since I am still on crop for at least a while...

No...The patent was posted here a bit earlier... Even if it is something very different from that it will most likely remain f1.4. Wide angle lens designs present unique set of problems to overcome and I don't think canon will complicate things.... They probably just want to update an aging lens with tweaks and in the process counter Sigma quickly... Introducing new variables, and further increasing what is likely to be a high price already for 1.4 is not something canon will want to try now.

That's your personal value judgement, and while you're entitled to it, the lens performs as it does, regardless of price. The $13K 600mm f/4L IS II costs $4K more than its predecessor. Are the optical improvements and lower weight worth $4K? Was the original worth $9K? Perhaps not to you...but does that make either lens crap? A Chevy Camero ZL1 has just as big an engine as a Mercedes C63 AMG, but the Chevy is half the price - that much better price/performance ratio that you're so loyal to means that Mercedes must be crap, right?

As for parroting the statements of others and calling a lens which is a favorite portrait lens of many photographers for good reason, and more importantly, one that you have very limited experience with, crap, well, thanks for being a shining beacon of maturity.

That's your personal value judgement, and while you're entitled to it, the lens performs as it does, regardless of price. The $13K 600mm f/4L IS II costs $4K more than its predecessor. Are the optical improvements and lower weight worth $4K? Was the original worth $9K? Perhaps not to you...but does that make either lens crap? A Chevy Camero ZL1 has just as big an engine as a Mercedes C63 AMG, but the Chevy is half the price - that much better price/performance ratio that you're so loyal to means that Mercedes must be crap, right?

As for parroting the statements of others and calling a lens which is a favorite portrait lens of many photographers for good reason, and more importantly, one that you have very limited experience with, crap, well, thanks for being a shining beacon of maturity.

did you really just compare an American riverboat with four wheels attached to it to a C63 AMG to make a point and put the word immature on the end of it? judging from that alone.. you either don´t know jack about cars.. or you must be american.. if anything.. the 50L is a Camaro being sold for 20k more than the Mercedes.. but can´t handle fast corners (f1.2 and 1.4).. and all it has for it are fancy looks and a big engine (f/1.2) for the straights (portraiture).. if you find it justifiable to spend 800€ more for the 50L than the Sigma 50/1.4.. by all means.. it´s your money..

okay.. let me correct my harshness from before. the 50L is what it is - but for the price that they charge you, it ought to be a lot more of what it now just is not. i know you don´t give a furry crack of a rats behind.. but for the average consumer, the price policy of Canon in the last year or so (50L EFs have always been a bit silly).. is just plain ridiculous and you have to agree that although it is a creative lens.. if you consider what you actually get for your buck.. it is rather a bit of a pile of something - or if it´s the word that bothers you.. the lens is rather.. ridiculously over-priced for what it can optically do - the 50/1.4 for 400€.. is 95% as useful for 3.5x less.. and even you can´t deny.. the bokeh that the Sigma delivers.. is pretty darn creamy but just a bit less of.

and as for the big white thingies.. they tend not to sell that many, development tends to be just as high as with mass lenses, production is rather specific and more by hand than the mass ones.. the 9k$ in 1999 is about 12.5k$ in 2012.. when the 13k$ price goes down a bit.. yeah.. the new price is justified.

anyone has a rough idea of the price for the 35L II? im seeing a price tag of roughly $2,000.00 correct me if im wrong.

Probably $1500 or so... If they go with $2000 that would cut the possible buyers down significantly....this is a general wide angle lens... Lots of people could want it...but only if priced properly...go a bit too high it becomes a specialty type pricing (like TS E, or ultra wide prime at 2k as in 14mm). No they will have to come somewhere in the 1500 to 1600 range...it will quickly slide down to the current L prime average of ~1400 after release and initial rush is gone. Not sustainable for a 35mm otherwise.

the lens is rather.. ridiculously over-priced for what it can optically do - the 50/1.4 for 400€.. is 95% as useful for 3.5x less.. and even you can´t deny.. the bokeh that the Sigma delivers.. is pretty darn creamy but just a bit less of.

Optically, the Sigma 50/1.4 seems quite good. But when I read reliable reports describing the Sigma's AF as "very inconsistent" (TDP) and "schizophrenic" (lensrentals.com)...well, I'd rather not have my intended subject be part of that creamy bokeh - the best IQ in the world sucks if the lens can't achieve correct focus.

It's interesting that you mentioned the 85L as 'bad ass' - given slow AF, and that the 85/1.8 is one of the best values in the Canon lineup for IQ/cost, and the very nice Sigma 85/1.4 is half the price of the 85L, I'd have thought the 85L would also be an overpriced pile of...whatever.

And the 50/1.2 L is a sub-par piece of cr*p as well by todays standards. A Sigma 50/1.4 runs circles around it.

Crap may be too strong a word, but I agree the 50L is not good value for money. I dare anyone to put it in their top 5 best primes (super teles excluded) if their life depended on it. I mean, my top 5 would be 100mm f2.8L IS Macro, 135mm f2, 85mm f1.2, 24mm II TS-E, 35mm f1.4.

I'm really surprised canon is refreshing the 35mm 1.4. I really feel it should be the 50mm 1.2 they should be updating. I guess Sigma got them pissed...

And the 50/1.2 L is a sub-par piece of cr*p as well by todays standards. A Sigma 50/1.4 runs circles around it.

Crap may be too strong a word, but I agree the 50L is not good value for money. I dare anyone to put it in their top 5 best primes (super teles excluded) if their life depended on it. I mean, my top 5 would be 100mm f2.8L IS Macro, 135mm f2, 85mm f1.2, 24mm II TS-E, 35mm f1.4.

The 50/1.2L stands out in the EF lens line, not for its sharpness, but for the beautiful way in which it draws, especially in the f/1.2 to f/2.8 range. Canon obviously designed it with a certain look in mind. It is easily my most-used prime and the last L prime that I would sell. The 24L, 35L, 85L, 100L and 135L are all exquisitely good, but not as useful for me. And it tests pretty well for sharpness. In LensRentals.com's "The Great 50mm Shootout", the 50L tested better for sharpness than Nikon, Sigma and Zeiss 50mm lenses, though not quite as high as two Leica 50mm lenses.

The 50/1.2L stands out in the EF lens line, not for its sharpness, but for the beautiful way in which it draws, especially in the f/1.2 to f/2.8 range. Canon obviously designed it with a certain look in mind.

Are you saying Canon designed the 50L not to be sharp but instead to get a 'certain look'? I really doubt Canon would design an L prime with sharpness NOT their top priority... if what you're saying is indeed the case, then I wonder what the Canon engineers had in mind when they designed the 24mm 1.4 Mk I?

Now, if Canon is indeed planning to release a 35mm MkII and 14-24mm f2.8 they better make sure making them tack sharp is their main priority.

anyone has a rough idea of the price for the 35L II? im seeing a price tag of roughly $2,000.00 correct me if im wrong.

Probably $1500 or so... If they go with $2000 that would cut the possible buyers down significantly....this is a general wide angle lens... Lots of people could want it...but only if priced properly...go a bit too high it becomes a specialty type pricing (like TS E, or ultra wide prime at 2k as in 14mm). No they will have to come somewhere in the 1500 to 1600 range...it will quickly slide down to the current L prime average of ~1400 after release and initial rush is gone. Not sustainable for a 35mm otherwise.

$1479 is the B&H price when there are no rebates. Why Canon would spend a lot on R&D to make a 35mm 1/4L II that will cost almost as version 1 costs. There is no logic on that. Add to the fact that we know what Canon does to the prices of the next version lenses...